Ok then revise it to say "homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally with each other."

Yes, but they can reproduce and there is no real evidence to suggest that it is a heritable trait. Therefore, evolution hasn't selected it. Worker bees, on the other hand, cannot reproduce and have been selected for a purpose other than their own ability to reproduce.

I'm not totally excluding it. As I said on the first page, there is no real evidence to suggest that there is a "gay gene". That's why I'm continuing as though it's not heritable. Until there's real evidence, I'm not goig to argue as though it's likely.

Then, how can you argue that homosexuals are evolutionary inferior? There is a lack of evidence to support such argument. Hence, the argument is pointless.

It cannot be disputed that they are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Arguing otherwise is absurd. I thought we had cleared this up earlier when everyone seemingly began to understand the simplicity of what I was saying. I am not advocating social darwinism or saying that homosexuals are worth less than heterosexuals. I clarified what Prima Donna was trying to say. That's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gio View Post
Then, how can you argue that homosexuals are evolutionary inferior? There is a lack of evidence to support such argument. Hence, the argument is pointless.

I've been over this continuously. That isn't the argument I'm making.

You'll forgive me if I don't restate the same thing again. I'm not trying to be awkward. I'm just tired of reiterating the same thing over and over. Forgive me, dude.

Your not making much sense then because that is exactly what you said. Im in a relationship myself with a girl who was born a genetic male. I don't consider myself homosexual but im sure that i would be classed that under your general grouping of straight or gay. But it's so much deeper then that. And then add bi-sexual people to the mix. And theres straight heterosexual people who choose to never have children, are they any less evolutionary inferior then a homosexual who also chooses not to procreate?

Your not making much sense then because that is exactly what you said. Im in a relationship myself with a girl who was born a genetic male. I don't consider myself homosexual but im sure that i would be classed that under your general grouping of straight or gay. But it's so much deeper then that. And then add bi-sexual people to the mix. And theres straight heterosexual people who choose to never have children, are they any less evolutionary inferior then a homosexual who also chooses not to procreate?

Read both threads. I'm not going to answer the same question continuously. I am saying that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective, but not in the way gio thinks. It's time the discussion ended, as we're getting nowhere. Agree to disagree.

Read both threads. I'm not going to answer the same question continuously. I am saying that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective, but not in the way gio thinks. It's time the discussion ended, as we're getting nowhere. Agree to disagree.

I see what your saying mate but i just think there is still way too many variables here. I know your not trying to offend anyone but using the word "inferior" won't help.

Because the basic aim of evolution is procreation. The mechanism of evolution doesn't think. It doesn't consider technology or morality. We are driven to reproduce so that the species can endure when we are gone.

Your understanding of evolution is very limited (and wrong). In many species there are infertile individuals who do help the continuation of the species as a whole (worker bees, gay animals who nurture indirect relatives, etc). They are a clear evolutionary advantage. I have no idea how the bees evolved in this way, I guess that's a pretty interesting question, but what is clear is that the social organization of bees (in which a small minority of individuals can reproduce) has been advantageous to species of bees as they have thrived for millions of years.

Your understanding of evolution is very limited (and wrong). In many species there are infertile individuals who do help the continuation of the species as a whole (worker bees, gay animals who nurture indirect relatives, etc). They are a clear evolutionary advantage. I have no idea how the bees evolved in this way, I guess that's a pretty interesting question, but what is clear is that the social organization of bees (in which a small minority of individuals can reproduce) has been advantageous to species of bees as they have thrived for millions of years.

I have a very healthy understanding of evolution. Your inability to comprehend my meaning is the issue. Homosexuals are not infertile. They are not the same as worker bees. This is like banging my head off of a brick wall.

Worker bees have an evolutionary purpose. They were selected. Homosexuality is not a heritable trait and was not selected. There is a very clear difference. Worker bees cannot reproduce, whereas homosexuals can. These are differences that you seem to be missing.

I'm being as clear as I can. The only point I made is that homosexuals are less likely to pass on their genes because of their sexual preference. It's that simple.